Reform of Institutions and Closings of Institutions

The Right to Humane Treatment in Institutional Settings

The courts have played an important role in establishing minimum standards of care for people with developmental disabilities in the United States living in institutional settings. During the 1970s, dozens of lawsuits were filed regarding the abusive conditions in the nation’s institutions, prompted in part by media exposés showing how existing institutions were failing to meet even the most basic needs of the people they were intended to serve.

These lawsuits eventually led to a recognition of the constitutional rights of people with developmental disabilities living in institutional settings to protection and to treatment. These cases also established standards for humane treatment in institutional settings, as well as mechanisms for ensuring that these standards are met.

The constitutional basis for these rulings was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1982, in Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982). Unfortunately, however, litigation and court monitoring for compliance with these constitutional standards is still ongoing.

Three significant series of such cases were:

Wyatt v. Stickney, 325 F.Supp. 781 (dealing with three Alabama state institutions for people with mental illness and developmental disabilities: Bryce Hospital, Searcy Hospital, and Partlow State School and Hospital)

A quick look at the Olmstead Decision, ADA, Willowbrook State Hospital, and the Welsch Case.

Closure of Institutions

The reform of residential institutions for people with disabilities was accompanied by a growing demand for persons with disabilities to live outside of institutions, in more natural, community settings. The evolution in thinking about the rights of people with developmental disabilities from ensuring humane treatment within institutions, to supporting living outside of institutions, was accompanied by the enactment of state and federal laws supporting the integration of people with developmental disabilities into community settings. This evolution can be demonstrated by the progress of this litigation:

The following series of U.S. Supreme Court cases outlines this evolution in thinking about the rights of people with developmental disabilities from ensuring humane treatment within institutions, to supporting living outside of institutions.

In this video interview, United States Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun speaks about his impressions of state institutions and the line of cases that followed and cited Pennhurst. (Video Source: Library of Congress)

From Independent Record, March 28, 2015

Senate votes overwhelmingly to close Montana Developmental Center in Boulder

The Montana Senate voted to close the Montana Developmental Center, which currently houses 50 residents and has been in Boulder for more than 120 years. There were reports of abuse in the Center, including sexual assault, and claims the Center was unable to keep its residents safe. One senator noted that there were already 18 incidents of abuse in the Center during 2015 alone. (Added 4-1-16)

A Tennessee institution, Clover Bottom, is closing after a troubled past. In the 1970’s a lawsuit was brought to end residents being forced to work without compensation. In the 1990’s investigators found cases of neglect and abuse. (Added 4-1-16)

RI Disability Law Center investigating Providence group home after abuse claims

Following reports of suspected abuse of residents and the death of a resident, a Rhode Island Group home for adults with developmental disabilities will close on March 25. Findings from an internal investigation were sent to the Attorney General’s Office and the State Police. The Disability Law Center has also opened an investigation. (Added 4-22-16)

Disclaimer: The language used to describe people with developmental disabilities has changed over time. Many terms and language that are now considered disrespectful and offensive were once considered acceptable.
As people with developmental disabilities have begun to advocate for the use of “people first” language and more respectful words to describe people with disabilities in spoken and written language, terms such as “retarded,” “handicapped,” “trainable,” and “educable” have been replaced in many laws documents.
However, the remnants of what is now considered unacceptable language and terms may still be found in references to official governmental bodies (i.e. President’s Panel on Mental Retardation), organizations that were founded during these earlier years, federal laws, reports (i.e. Community Residences for Mentally Retarded Persons), case law, and quotations. These terms are used from time to time in this website, for historical accuracy.